Growing up, I had heard of the McDonald’s hot coffee case, but in multiple contexts. At the time, I was fairly certain that I understood the circumstances of the frivolous case and the jokes that came along with it. Through watching Hot Coffee and gaining exposure to accurate case details, I realized that the image I had in my head was entirely incorrect. By viewing Stella Libeck’s own account of the incident, seeing pictures of the unimaginably painful burns, and learning about how McDonald’s brewed its coffee at very high temperatures, I now understand how much something can be distorted through media and hearsay. After this revelation, I also understand how it can be difficult to ensure that jurors have no prior opinions/exposure to the case, especially when a case can become so publicly known, like in the case of McDonald’s hot coffee or the OJ Simpson trial. I also learned that the publication of torts to encourage tort reform can influence public perception of a case. …show more content…
Before business law class, I was not aware of how frequently arbitration is incorporated in contracts. Directly after watching Hot Coffee, I read through a recent internship offer. Almost hidden on the page, an arbitration clause was included. Before watching the film, I did not realize how much impact arbitration can have on a case, as depicted through Jamie Leigh Jones. As a result, I thought about the potential implications of my signature before moving forward. Jamie Leigh Jones’ case showed me that significant terms can be hidden in a contract, but be completely legal. This stresses the importance of reading documents before signing
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
One of the most famous cases of the mid-nineties (and possibly one of the most controversial) of the wealthy being above the law is the O.J. Simpson trial, who fatally stabbed his ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. Being accused of murder, the court had sufficient biological and psychological evidence to prove Simpson’s act of murder. However, Simpson was found not guilty by the jury and lives as a fre...
Hariman, R. “Performing the Laws: Popular Trials and Social Knowledge” from Popular Trials: Rhetoric, Mass Media, and the Law, Robert Hariman, ed(s)., University of Alabama Press, 1990. 17-30.
In the 1930’s a plethora of prejudiced persons are present amidst the prominent Scottsboro trials, a seven-year-long case consisting of false rape allegations made against nine black boys from Scottsboro. When citizens fail to acknowledge their own preconceived ideas and look past the prejudice present in society, justice cannot be served. In the Scottsboro case, the court of Alabama disregards the societal issues surrounding racial discrimination and endorses the guilty verdict and conviction of the nine African American boys. Failing to look past their own personal biases, the jury ignores the unquestionable evidence that would support the boys’ case. Instead, the jury focuses on their predilection
In the DemoracyNow.org video link, it was stated that the McDonald’s lawyers provided a list of seven hundred other customers’ names, who in the past ten years had made complaints against McDonald’s stating their brewed “hot cup of coffee” was too hot. McDonald’s serves over a million cups of coffee worldwide, so the two million and seven hundred thousand dollar jury’s award was the two days’ worth of coffee sales that McDonald’s had to pay for brewing their product “the cup coffee” too
After a lengthy two hundred and fifty-two-day trial “not guilty” were the words that left the world in shock. O.J Simpson was your typical golden boy. He had it all, the nice car, the football career, and his kids. Unfortunately, this all came to an end when two bodies came to be spotted deceased in Nicole Browns front yard and was a gruesome sight. O. J’s ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman both found with brutal stab marks. Unfortunately, all his glory days now brought to an end, he went from playing on the field to begging for his freedom when becoming the main suspect of their murders. Since this trial has not only altered the way Americans viewed celebrities, but it also racially divided society,
Park, R. (1996). Character Evidence Issues in the O.J. Simpson Case - Or, Rationales of the Character Evidence Ban, With Illustrations from the Simpson Case. University of Colorado Law Review, 747-776.
Simpson case was an extraordinary example of the importance of ethical considerations during any investigative process. It was very unique, in that O.J Simpson, at the time, was very wealthy and was able to afford a great defense team (Gordon III, 1997). This case was also very unique, in that the extensive experience of the defense team was able to highlight their perspective on the poor handling of evidence and the costly mistakes made by the prosecution. It opened the eyes of the LAPD and forensic entities across the country (Gordon III, 1997). The decision of the jury was not a reflection of the prosecutions’ lack of evidence, however, it was the unethical behavior of the investigators involved, the questionability of the handling of the evidence by investigators and forensic analysts (Gordon III,
A case in which Officer Michael Slager fell victim to when the courts later changed their verdict after being presented with a video of what really happened. “. if not for bystander Feidin Santana’s video casting doubt on office Michael Slagers version of events, he may not have quickly been charged with murder.” Imagine if this man would have been set free only to think getting away with murder is easy. Seeming that a person is an employee of the law, jurors’ do not expect them to lie.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
In a well-known study conducted by Judge Donald Shelton, jurors were asked various questions to see if there was a significant difference in the rate of acquittals between those who watched shows such as CSI and those who do not. Attorneys, judges, and journalists have claimed that watching television programs like CSI have caused jurors to wrongfully acquit guilty defendants when no scientific evidence has been presented. To test this, 1,027 jurors were randomly selected and given a questionnaire to fill out. Questions about their demographics were listed and the jurors were asked what kind of TV shows they watched, how often, and how real they believed these shows were. The survey asked questons about seven ty...
The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy -- newspapers and television stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may not only report facts, but also present the information in a way that projects the culpability of the defendant. By allowing pretrial publicity of court cases, potential jurors are given information that could sway their opinion of the defendant even before the trial begins, and how they interpret the evidence given during the trial. The right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right of the press, print and electronic media, to publish information about the defendant and the alleged criminal acts is guaranteed by the First Amendment. These two constitutional safeguards come into conflict when pretrial publicity threatens to deprive the defendant of an impartial jury. However, there is a compromise between these two Constitutional rights, which would allow for the selection of an impartial jury and allow the media to report on the details of the case. The media should only be able to report information once the trial has...
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
For the first mock trial held in class, the case of the stolen lunch, I did not have a large role. I chose to be a part of the jury, which I feel gave me an immense feeling of responsibility and really allowed me to deeply analyze the case as it was being presented. Within this case, Mary Ovechkin, the plaintiff, had claimed that her lunch had been stolen and ate by the defendant, Sammy Crosby. My first expectation of this case, before it had actually started, was that the defense and prosecution would each have time to present their cases. I expected both sides to question those who were involved, such as the witnesses, defendant, and plaintiff. Then I expected to have to come up with my own verdict to share with the rest of the jury based on the evidence presented. Based on my role, I expected to learn how the jury reaches their decisions.
Gies, T. P., & Bagley, A. W. (2013). Mandatory arbitration of employment disputes: What's new and what's next?. Employee Relations Law Journal, 39(3), 22-33.